Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to clarify one thing that my colleague from Massachusetts just mentioned; he said the courts have upheld the President in this matter. I might mention that the district court upheld the ruling but it is pending still before the court of appeals, and recognizing this case was unprecedented, the district court judge suspended implementation of the Executive order until the court of appeals acts. The courts have not made a final decision. Many think this is clearly legislation by Executive order, and the President exceeded that. The President has taken several actions by Executive order. This is one. It is not the only one that is really legislation that many feel very strongly about. We should vote and we cannot vote unless we move to proceed to the Labor-HHS bill.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, It is with great pleasure and pride that I congratulate Miss Shawntel Smith, who was crowned Miss America 1996 recently in Atlantic City on her 24th birthday. Shawntel is the fourth Oklahoman to be named Miss America in the pageant's 75 years. She joins three other Oklahomans who have won that honor: Norma Smallwood in 1926, Jane Jayroe in 1967 and Susan Powell in 1981. Shawntel is a native of Muldrow, Oklahoma, a town of about 3,200 residents who are by all accounts very proud and supportive of this young lady. When she was crowned Miss Oklahoma earlier this year, the town erected road signs along the Eastern Oklahoma roads leading into Muldrow. It seems, now, however, those signs are a little outdated. During the next year, Shawntel will represent Oklahoma and all of America as she travels to special events and speaking engagements as Miss America. Her platform is to raise awareness for the need to prepare students for the job market. Shawntel believes that ``by exposing students to potential careers and making them aware of the education needed, students can make their dreams become realities.'' And Shawntel obviously knows a little something about making dreams become realities. Education has been an important part of Shawntel's own life. Through competition in pageants she has been able to earn enough in scholarship money to put herself through Northeastern Oklahoma State University, where she is now working as a marketing director. Shawntel's winnings from the Miss Oklahoma and Miss America pageants will allow her to continue her education. Her goal is to obtain a master's degree in business administration from Oklahoma City University, and I have no doubt she will. [[Page S 14542]] She already has demonstrated her affinity for hard work and tenacity. Shawntel competed in three Miss Oklahoma pageants before she won the title in July of this year. After the pageant, Shawntel's father, Gailen Smith, commented that when Shawntel speaks to people, her inner beauty shines through. What a wonderful and appropriate sentiment. I congratulate Gailen, and Shawntel's mother, Karen, whose daughter possesses not only physical beauty, but inner beauty and strength of character as well. Mr. President, Shawntel's example rekindles our belief in each individual's ability to accomplish something extraordinary and restores our confidence in the American spirit of helping others realize their dreams. Our State of Oklahoma, which is home to the finest people anywhere, celebrates her achievement. Congratulations, Shawntel. We are pleased for you and look forward with great pride to the year ahead as you represent our State and our Nation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I would like to compliment my colleagues and friends from Missouri, Senator Bond and Senator Ashcroft, for their statements, as well as Senators [[Page S 14270]] Santorum and Grassley. I hope our colleagues had a chance to listen to them because they were right on target. National service is basically paying volunteers. I find that to be a little bit of an oxymoron--paid volunteers. We have thousands, we have millions of volunteers who are doing great work, and they do it without the Federal Government saying, ``Here, we are going to give you a check.'' Many of us stated our opposition to this program at its inception because we said it would cost enormous sums. I looked at my notes, and I was computing, given the figures that we received from the Clinton administration, and estimated this program would cost $22,000. I remember debating Mr. Segal, and he said it would not cost that much; the cost would be something like $17,000 or $18,000. According to GAO, the cost is almost $27,000. I was talking about total cost, the cost to the Federal Government, the cost to State and local governments, and private. It turns out to be, if you add the total cost, $17,000 from the AmeriCorps; other Federal support, $3,000; State and local contributions, governments, $4,000; and private, $1,800. So the private supports only 7 percent. They stated that this was going to be largely privately funded. It has not been. It is largely Government funded at a cost of $27,000. Mr. President, some people said, ``Well, this is good so it will help people be educated.'' The average cost of a Pell grant is $1,300. It is about one-eighteenth the size of this program. And that is a grant. The average cost of a student loan is $416. That compares to this program's average cost of $27,000. There is no comparison. Mr. President, in my opinion, this program is a failure as an education tool. It is a failure as a tool promoting service or volunteers. We do not need the Federal Government to micromanage a program. We see that all the Federal Departments--the Veterans Department, EPA, Department of Transportation, Labor, Justice, Interior--are receiving assistance and funds to train volunteers. We do not need that. And then when you find out that Big Brothers and Big Sisters and Red Cross and Girl Scouts have been denied funds, this does not make sense. We cannot afford this program. Let us put the scarce resources that we have in the programs that will help thousands. Actually, we have millions; we have 9 million students that benefited under the guaranteed student loan program or the Pell grant program. We can help millions in those programs, and we have been doing so. We are wasting millions of dollars under this program. It is a time to defund it, and I hope that this amendment by our friend from Maryland will be defeated. I thank my colleague from Missouri.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, acting on behalf of Senator Bond, I yield Senator Santorum 5 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield Senator Ashcroft 3\1/2\ minutes. How much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. NICKLES. I yield 6\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Title V of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act requires EPA to issue a rule establishing the minimum elements of a permit program for sources regulated under the act. The act requires that this permit rule be issued within 1 year of enactment. The 1990 amendments further required States within 3 years to develop and submit to EPA for approval their own programs that comply with the Federal minimum elements as defined by the EPA permit rule. Even under the ambitious schedule of the 1990 amendments, Congress clearly provided that States were to have 2 full years to respond to EPA's rule establishing the minimum elements of a permit program. Although EPA promulgated a final rule in 1992, the controversy that surrounded this rule prompted the agency to revisit many key issues in the rulemaking. Today, 3 years later, I am sorry to report that EPA has still been unable to resolve fundamental elements of the Federal program which States must comply with in establishing their own programs. As recently as this summer, EPA has issued a new proposal, despite having not relieved states of the requirement to comply with the 1992 rule. The result, predictably, has been an untenable level of confusion and uncertainty. States are spending considerable resources in developing programs that may or may not comply with EPA's final permit program. Similarly, sources across the country are now submitting permit applications, despite the lack of clear Federal guidance.

Mr. NICKLES. I would like to thank my colleague from Missouri for including language in the Senate Committee Appropriations report on this important issue. My involvement with this difficult issue dates back to the debate held in this body over the 1990 amendments when many of us expressed concern over the complexity of the title and its potential for imposing unnecessary costs on sources and States. Given the severity of the problems which have beset this program, I hope the conferees to this bill will reflect on this debate and include statutory language requesting a 1-year delay in order to protect the vital interests of States and sources who are in the unfortunate position of having to comply with a regulatory moving target. I also want to thank my colleague from North Carolina for his close scrutiny of this issue and his willingness to hold oversight hearings on the agency's implementation of the permit program.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern with the Senate committee's designation of the primary ARS laboratory at El Reno, OK, as a ``worksite.'' Upon a thorough evaluation of the Fort Reno facility, it remains clear that this primary station remains an important and valuable resource for the agricultural community of the Midwest. Fort Reno's 7,000 contiguous acres, numerous existing structures, including buildings and fences and valuable on-site personnel resources, make it a unique asset and an ideal location to direct and administer research. A large amount of work at Fort Reno is dedicated to closing the forage gaps in livestock production systems common to the Great Plains States by experimenting in forage alternatives to native pasture and winter wheat pasture. Fort Reno's regional value is visible in their cooperative efforts with ARS stations in Booneville, AR, and Bushland, TX, to solve the problems caused by cattle raised on fescue pastures in the eastern- third of the United States. Fort Reno's research on the resistance of tropical cattle breeds of fescue fungus problems continues to hold valuable promise. In addition, Fort Reno many years ago established watershed research locations on several pastures to collect runoff and evaluate the environmental impact of agricultural waste, chemicals, and sediment generated by various grazing systems. Current plans call for an evaluation of this long-term data and an expansion of the program to larger, system-size watersheds. This information will be very valuable as non-point source pollution reduction goals are expanded in the Clean Water Act reauthorization. As a primary research facility, these are just several examples of progress being made at Fort Reno and a demonstration of the facility's continuing contributions to the agricultural community of the Midwest. I know the committee is aware that the House of Representatives maintains full funding for the ARS station at Fort Reno in their fiscal year 1996 Agriculture appropriations bill. In light of the important research and existing nature of the Fort Reno site, I continue to strongly support full funding for primary research at Fort Reno.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2609

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Arizona 3 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, who explained this amendment last night. We reviewed the amendment. We have no objection to it.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2518

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I do not doubt--as a matter of fact, I think I know probably almost as well as anybody on this floor--that we have very significant problems in the Indian community. Welfare is part of it. It may be part of the problem. I am not sure that doubling the money going into AFDC for Indian tribes will solve that problem. It would provide greater cash assistance, no doubt. But I do not think that is necessarily right. If they have 1.5 percent of the population, we will say they get 3 percent of the money--that is not going to make their problems go away. If I really thought that would make their problems go away, I might support the amendment. We have lots and lots of problems on reservations and in the Indian community, but I do not think just by increasing cash payments, that that is a solution. I think the solution is in the Dole bill. I urge our colleagues to vote no on the Daschle amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment Senator McCain as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. I think he has provided a very valuable service because he does put some good language in this bill. The bill that we have before us--not the amendment, the bill we have before us--allows direct funding to Indian tribes based on actual AFDC population. Now, Indian AFDC population I heard is 1.3 percent, and I heard somebody say it is 1.7 percent of the population. Why would it be right to say they should receive 3 percent of the funding set aside? I think that is arbitrary. I also think it is maybe double what they are now receiving. Indian tribes should be able to receive the block grant and be able to manage that, but it should be based on the population receiving AFDC payments. It should not be some arbitrary figure that is pulled out of the sky. I compliment Senator McCain for the language he has inserted in the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Daschle amendment because I think it sets up an arbitrary level that happens to be about double what the current Indian population of AFDC is, and that is not called for. I do not think it is a good way to manage our welfare program. I think Senator Dole has good language in the bill. Hopefully, it will be sustained. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Daschle amendment. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island the remainder of our time.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, everyone I heard speak on this issue said illegitimacy is a very serious problem. There is no question that it is. Illegitimacy has been exploding in this country, and, as a result, we have increased crime, we have increased welfare. We need to break that cycle. The present system is we subsidize illegitimacy, the more children born out of wedlock the more Federal money they received. That is the present system. A lot of us think that is wrong. This bill says that there will be no additional under the Dole bill--not the Domenici amendment, the Dole bill says we are not going to give additional Federal cash payments for welfare families if they have additional children. It does not say the States. If the States are really adamant and say they want to help and do it in the form of cash, they can use their own money. The bill allows them to give noncash benefits, so they can take some of the block grant money and use noncash benefits in the form of vouchers and give. But we do not want to have cash incentives for additional children born out of wedlock. So I think Senator Dole has a good provision, and it is with regret that I oppose my friend and colleague, Senator Domenici's amendment. One final comment. I heard New Jersey mentioned. The Heritage Foundation did a report. I will capsulize. New Jersey is the only State in the Nation that instituted a family cap policy, denying an increase in cash welfare benefits to mothers who have additional children while already receiving welfare. The evidence currently available from New Jersey indicates that a family cap has resulted in a decline in births to women on AFDC, but not an increase in the abortion rate. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2575

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. In my opinion, this amendment really is a back-door effort to have a continued entitlement. This creates a new entitlement which requires the States to provide services. It tries to get around the idea of having a time limit, a limitation on welfare. I remember President Clinton's statement that we want to end welfare [[Page S 13484]] as we know it. This amendment basically is an effort to exempt the 5- year time limit to keep an open-ended entitlement. This opens up States also to lawsuits from recipients who do not get the type of training they want rather than what the State thinks they need. I might mention we had a similar type provision that was earlier defeated. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues would vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2472

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida as well as the Senator from Arkansas for their eloquent debate and the Senator from New York for giving the counter view. I think we have had excellent debate on this amendment. I know my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, has an amendment that he wishes to discuss. If no one else wishes to speak on the Graham amendment, Mr. President, I hope that we will have debate on the Domenici amendment, and I ask my other colleagues who have requested time to discuss their amendments tonight. Senator Domenici has mentioned that he will not be on the floor too long on this amendment. Other Senators that have amendments listed in the unanimous-consent order, if they wish to debate those tonight, I hope they will come to the floor in the near future.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to respond to our colleague from Arkansas, part of the unanimous-consent agreement would allow 10 minutes of debate to be equally divided between the Senators on this amendment, and actually on the Graham amendment there will be 20 minutes equally divided. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.